COMMUNICATION IN VIRTUAL REALITY
Verbal & Non-verbal
I conducted this UX research at the Advanced Research Centre at the University of Glasgow. The study focused on user interactions within virtual environments, specifically examining the impact of social density on communication behaviors. I am pleased to share that this paper received an A* grade, resulting in the classification of my degree at a distinction level.
THE PROBLEM
The rapid evolution of Virtual Reality (VR) applications across various sectors, including education, healthcare, entertainment, and business, highlights the need to understand user interactions within these environments.
A key aspect of social VR applications is the design of the virtual environment (VE), particularly its social density, which is defined by the ratio of users to available space. This design factor significantly impacts how users engage in verbal and non-verbal communication. However, there remains a limited understanding of how social density influences interactions in remote VR settings. This project addresses the gap in knowledge regarding the effects of social density on user behavior by conducting a between-subjects experiment that analyzes verbal and non-verbal communication under different density conditions.
KEY GOAL
The research aims to explore whether higher social density increases users' awareness of non-verbal cues, such as personal space and movement, and how it influences verbal communication including involvement in the conversation, silence, speech overlap, and visual attention during overlapping speech. Ultimately, I aimed to provide insights that can inform the design of future social VR applications, enhancing user interactions within these immersive environments.
Experiment
The experiment was designed to investigate the effects of social density on communication behaviors within virtual environments (VEs).
It included two distinct conditions: Low Social Density, represented by a large 256 m² virtual conference room, and High Social Density, represented by a smaller 64 m² room. The environments were intentionally designed to simulate corporate meeting rooms, featuring warm aesthetics with minimal decor to encourage social interaction. Each condition involved five participants, leading to social densities of 0.019 and 0.078 people per m², respectively. A between-subjects design was employed to mitigate potential fatigue and motion sickness associated with prolonged use of headsets.
Participants engaged in a consensus-seeking task consisting of two parts: first, they went through an ice-breaker exercise, followed by a collaborative discussion on how to allocate a hypothetical £20,000 budget for enhancing the student experience at their university.
A pilot study was conducted prior to the main experiment to identify and address any logistical or technical issues, which informed subsequent improvements in the experiment’s procedure. The main experiment unfolded in four stages: welcoming participants and addressing their questions, providing a tutorial on using the VR headsets, separating participants into different physical rooms to minimize distractions, and concluding with an exit questionnaire to gather feedback on their VR experience.
Findings
The study's findings revealed significant differences in users' movement and whether they were satisfied with the personal space available based on social density conditions The results also indicate that social density in VR can significantly influence conversation patterns.
Large Room
Low Social Density
Participants in the larger room felt more at ease, allowing them to move freely and occupy central areas of the virtual space. This increased comfort led to higher instances of speech overlap, with multiple participants often engaging in side conversations. Many appreciated the opportunity to step aside for private discussions, which enhanced the realism of their interactions. However, the high speech overlap also correlated with unsustained visual attention, complicating the management of speaking turns due to frequent movements and changes in group configuration.
Small Room
High Social Density
In contrast, participants in the smaller room were more aware of their personal space, often positioning themselves in corners and edges, which limited their movement. This awareness led to longer silences and hesitations in conversation, suggesting tension and shyness within the group dynamics. A clear conversation leader emerged, indicating less variability in involvement among participants. Overall, the forced proximity did not encourage communication as anticipated; instead, it created challenges for focused discussions and a general hesitance to engage actively.